Daley v. Cablevision Systems Corp.
675 F. App'x 97
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Daley, pro se, was an Advanced Field Technician at Cablevision and underwent shoulder surgery.
- Daley alleged Cablevision denied him reassignment and terminated him after the surgery.
- He sued under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and the FMLA for disability discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Cablevision after conducting a thorough review of the record.
- Daley appealed, arguing among other things that the court improperly relied on his failure to file a Local Rule 56.1 statement and that his request for accommodation was protected activity supporting a retaliation claim.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed, concluding no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude judgment for Cablevision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because Daley failed to file a Rule 56.1 statement | Daley contended the district court relied solely on his failure to comply with Rule 56.1 | Cablevision maintained the district court properly examined the record and found no genuine dispute | Court held the district court exercised discretion and conducted an "assiduous review," so summary judgment was proper |
| Whether Daley engaged in protected activity by requesting accommodation/job-search assistance | Daley argued his request for accommodation and participation in the job-search process was protected activity under the ADA | Cablevision implicitly disputed that the request created protected activity sufficient for a retaliation claim | Court noted it was unclear whether district court’s conclusion was correct under precedent but assumed arguendo protected activity could exist |
| Whether Cablevision articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination | Daley argued termination was retaliatory/discriminatory | Cablevision proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination | Court held Cablevision offered legitimate reasons and Daley failed to show those reasons were pretextual |
| Whether Daley produced evidence creating a triable issue on discrimination/retaliation | Daley asserted facts showing adverse action linked to his surgery and accommodation requests | Cablevision argued lack of evidence of pretext or causal link | Court held Daley did not present evidence that could reasonably establish pretext or create a genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court duty to review record despite local rule failures)
- Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court discretion in assessing record)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (requesting reasonable accommodation can be protected activity)
- Muller v. Costello, 187 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1999) (reasonable accommodation as protected activity)
- Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. (SUNY) at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014) (retaliation claims analyzed under Title VII burden-shifting framework)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (burden-shifting for retaliation claims)